The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[dy031101]

There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

It's 100% true.  It's also one of the things that I think is very interesting about this scenario.  Shows the upsides and downsides of using the oldies.

What about engines that are no longer being manufactured?

What would be the cut-off number where one can still live off second-hand spares, and how many engines does the requirement have to call for at the minimum to make, for example, reverse-engineering worthwhile?

It is that one version of my WIP OrBat has in it EC-121L and KC-97J, both calling for T34 turboprop engines...... I intend to have a tiny fleet of each type living off 2nd-hand spares after zero-timing their fuselages but am wondering what the story would be for their engines.

One option I have in mind (I have already used it with another country), is to let a province get independence from the main state, but keeping good relations with it, or at least having ties with a powerful ally. This way, they may field relatively small air forces under the umbrella, or counting with the reinforcement from a bigger country. This way, for example, they get AWACS, EW and tanker support for their air combat component. They are also the first in the list when the main country retire their front line jets and are offered in the second hand market.

Having seen the word Cyprus yesterday by mere chance, I began thinking...... something similar?  Independent but with a big enough ethnic population from your country or just good enough of a tie that if it is attacked, your government might be compelled by public pressure to back that country militarily?  Or even a former province of your country forcibly seperated by the 1970 treaty?

[Logan Hartke]

Since it's been nearly 10 years since this was proposed, a whole new set of equipment would be available according to the treaty rules in 1/1/2020. Anyone interested in an updated version of the rules and discussion of this scenario?

Have I really been around here that long? Wow...

Cheers,

Logan

[AS.12]

I occasionally do thought-experiments; how to equip an air force of $YEAR with only second-hand equipment which could be reasonably acquired in that period.  For extra challenge add complications from embargoes.

So I'm game for a go!

I did one recently for a notional breakaway from Zambia in 1972, when that country was heading to one-party rule:
- S-58s from French storage, updated with PT6 TwinPacs bought commercially
- T-28s for training and light attack
- F-86s or Commonwealth Sabres for combat roles.  FJ-4B Fury had amazing capabilities but would have been hard to get out of AMARC.
- Transport was trickier, perhaps Noratlas from Portugal stocks and a couple of DC-8s for long-range.  I had thought C-47 initially but decent ones were becoming increasingly rare in that period, certainly not available by the dozen unless you were a MAP recipient.

What surprised me was how difficult it was to minimise the number of engine types and how easy it was to end-up with oddballs like Centaurus engines that'd have to be replaced ASAP when spares ran out.  And also how easy it was to end-up with aircraft originating from only one or two nations, which seemed precarious.

[Logan Hartke]

That's the same kind of thing I do, AS.12. I only share about a tenth of those I kick around in my brain, though. Ones that I think other people may find interesting.

So, here are the rules for this scenario updated for 2020.

Updated Treaty Rules:

1. No aircraft or helicopter types that first flew after January 1st, 1980
2. No aircraft or helicopter types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 2000
3. No combat aircraft with an empty weight greater than 50,000 kg
4. No armored vehicle types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 2000
5. No ships launched after January 1st, 1990

Alternate timeline rules:

6. You can upgrade as much as you like
7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades
8. Number of aircraft/vehicles/ships limited to actual numbers built
9. Assume equipment has been stored since it was decommissioned or that it will be decommission and transferred to your country on January 1st, 2010

* - There's more modern options, so I think the arms control commission would be less lenient this time around.


So, the obvious one that I know people have been salivating over for some time is the F-14 Tomcat.



I've not the world's biggest F-14 fanboy, but I'd still be making it the backbone of my air force. Even so, there's some other great options out there in addition to the F-14. I don't want to steal anyone's thunder, though, so what are some of the gems you all would choose? There should be some decent late Cold War swag available.

Cheers,

Logan

[scooter]

Hypothetical Air Force:

Interceptors:
F-106 Delta Dart, updated to the F-106C/D prototype standard (?)
F-8L Crusader

CAS:
A-7 Corsair II

Cargo:
C-123 (TacAirlift)
C-130H (TacAirlift)
AN-22 (StratAirlift)


I just want to make sure of one thing- indigenous production, based on existing blueprints: allowed by the treaty organization or not?

[Mossie]

My first thought was Tornado.  Being wound down with F-35 coming online, plenty available.

[Logan Hartke]

Cargo:
C-130H (TacAirlift)

I just want to make sure of one thing- indigenous production, based on existing blueprints: allowed by the treaty organization or not?

The C-130 family is still in production, so that wouldn't be an option, regardless of the age of the particular variant or individual airframe (Rule #2). Indigenous production would not be permitted, but you can have up to the full number of aircraft built originally (See rules #8 & #9). With the exception of the C-130, the that force meets the original outline, scooter. Want to try upgrading now that there's some new stuff available as of 2020?

My first thought was Tornado.  Being wound down with F-35 coming online, plenty available.

I was hoping someone would catch that one, Mossie! I think my combat force would be heavily dominated by ASF-14/Attack Super Tomcat 21s and Tornado IDS/ECR aircraft operating in the strike role. The Tornado is one of the most modern aircraft that would be available in this scenario.

Cheers,

Logan

[Weaver]

Sea Harriers would be available if you consider them a separate type from the AV-8B, but the latter isn't: production ended in 2003.

Jaguar's not available (damn!): India produced some after 2000.

Mirage 2000's not available: production ended in 2007.

The A-10 is in: produced 1972-1984.

AMX is out: first flight 1984.

There's not a lot more to add to the original lists. Most things that first flew after 1970 remained in production into the 21st century.

[Logan Hartke]

Yeah, the Mirage 2000 was close, but not quite. The Harriers wouldn't be available because I think there's actually a lot more viable this time around if you think about the full force composition. With the F-14, you can actually get a "teen series" fighter. The A-10 that you mentioned is a huge deal, in my opinion. No better close air support aircraft's been developed for my money.

Here are some others that I think add a lot of capability:

• Mikoyan MiG-31
• Sukhoi Su-17/20/22
• Sukhoi Su-24
• Grumman A-6 Intruder/EA-6 Prowler
• Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet
• Soko G-4 Super Galeb
• FMA IA 58 Pucará
• Socata TB 30 Epsilon/TB 31 Oméga
• Short 330/360/C-23 Sherpa
• Kawasaki C-1
• Boeing 707/KC-135 family
• Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
• Lockheed P-3 Orion
• Aérospatiale Gazelle
• Kaman SH-2 Seasprite
• Sikorsky/Westland Sea King family
• Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight

That would result in an almost top to bottom replacement of the rotary wing fleet, some much better support aircraft options (such as AWACS), and a nice high performance interceptor to supplement the F-14. Ground attack improves by leaps and bounds, you get more credible MPA, and a modern anti-tank helicopter.

You can still use some of the aircraft from the previous set that probably don't have a good replacement, too. I don't think you really get better airlift options that the C-160, C-141 and C-5, for example. You might even choose to keep on some F-4 Phantoms and F-111s. Likewise, I still think I'd have a lot of OV-10 Broncos flying since you can't get a great attack helicopter, but the Gazelle should ease some of the burden on that fleet.

Cheers,

Logan

[Weaver]

Well you might need the Sea Harriers if you need the STOVL capability, say for use from tiny islands or improvised SCADS-style 'aircraft carriers' that you unquestionably threw together at the last minute and definitely didn't have all the bits for squirrelled away years before...

Your comment about the Gazelle got me thinking about the Bo-105 (which I much prefer), but unfortunately it didn't go out of production until 2001.  Gazelles have a mixed reputation in combat: the AAC found them to be very vulnerable and fragile in the Falklands, but then the Syrians got some good results against the Israelis in 1982, using pop-up, hit-and-run tactics to fire HOTs at Israeli armour.

The Alpha Jet's a good one. German As were going for a song while they lasted.

If 707-based AWACS was too expensive for you, there's always the option of putting Hawkeye radar on the Orions. That was trialled in real life, and you did say unlimited upgrades, right?

More types you could have (some in one or the other timeframe):

IAI Arava: 103 produced 1972-1988
DHC Dash-7: 113 produced 1975-1988
DHC Buffalo: 122 produced 1965-1986
DHC Caribou: 307 produced 1958-1968 (turboprop conversion available: see wiki)
Westland Scout: 150 produced 1960-1968
Westland Wasp: 133 produced 1963-? (surely can't be after 1980?)
Cessna A-37B Dragonfly: 577 produced 1963-1975
BAC Strikemaster: 146 produced 1967-1984

[Logan Hartke]

Those would all totally be options, Weaver. I, too, looked at the Bo 105, but it would absolutely be out. Heck, Indonesia was still building them in 2008, so they are definitely a no-go until at least 2030.

The other aircraft in the list would have all been available back in 2010 according to the earlier rule set, with the exception of the Dash 7. I'd be opting for some of those this go around to supplement a clearly handicapped tactical air transport fleet, the core of which would continue to be formed by the Transall C-160 and DHC Buffalo by default as far as I'm concerned.



I'd actually forgotten about the P-3 AEW&C despite them being based just down the road from me. That is an excellent option. You could get all the latest engine and avionics upgrades from the P-3 family and the latest radar upgrades from the Hawkeye and have a very modern platform with a great endurance.

Cheers,

Logan

[tahsin]

I actually went back to see what I had posted...

Yes, 40 squadrons of Phantoms but would the world like it? And more spares compared to any F-14.

[Weaver]

A key limiting factor is your budget. F-14s and AWACS don't come cheap, even second-hand.

Also, just because the treaty says you can buy something, doesn't mean the owners would be willing to sell it. Classified equipment, or even just national policy, could stop all sorts of things. If the treaty obliged other nations to sell surplus to this country (and it's hard to imagine that) then a nation that didn't want to could just scrap obsolete equipment or keep it allegedly 'in service', just parked up and rusting or dismantled for spares.

[Logan Hartke]

As a general template, consider a country more like Israel, but if there was no peace treaty in 1967 and the Arab neighbors ended up getting their act together, invaded, defeated, and occupied the country. Obviously, there are many differences if you read the original post, but it was meant to be a bit of a hybrid of 1967 Israel, WWII Japan, WWI Germany, 1978 Uganda, etc. I was thinking of what some modern Versailles Treaty might be like if your equipment was primarily age-restricted. What kind of treaty would someone come up with in 1970 to try to handicap someone. How would you get around it?

In most cases, those total comprehensive upgrade packages for old airframes don't make economic sense. A used F-16 is almost always a better option than something like a Kfir C.10. But what if you didn't have access to Kfirs? Since the original country wasn't allowed to have a military, the idea is that they'd have a booming economy. This happened to some extent to countries like post-WWII Japan. I also considered the Arab build up to 1973, though. Revenge is a powerful motivator. And think of the current Croatia-Serbia arms race or Saudi Arabia-Qatar arms race. When countries have access to a lot of cash, they can make things very difficult for their neighbors.



So, if you want a rough analogue, think about something similar to Israel, but with maybe a bit more territory to defend and greater naval threats to defend against. And no domestic arms industry, either. Assume that you'd be sold almost anything that doesn't violate the treaty rules because other countries know just how vulnerable you are and how vengeful your neighbors have grown. They don't want to violate the treaty since you were clearly in the wrong, but they don't want another hot war. It's in their interest that you maintain a credible deterrence...as long as it's legal. Besides, you're taking old equipment off their hands at a premium, and driving your vengeful neighbors to buy even more of the latest Typhoons, Rafales, and F-35s to counter your recently acquired and upgraded F-14s. From the perspective of the sellers, it's a win-win.

How large should the new military be? Something about the size of the IDF might be a good equivalent, but potentially a bit larger to account for the lower availability and readiness rates of old equipment. No more than say 20 fast jet squadrons, 10 helicopter squadrons, and 12 support squadrons? That's rough, though, you can get away with half that in your conceptual nation if you'd like. It's not specified in the treaty.



The budget wouldn't be unlimited, but it'd be at least what the IDF's currently is, just assume cash in place of US subsidies. Also, realize that you basically get to save up on equipment acquisition for almost a decade before each force renewal. I didn't want to get too much in the weeds with the details, but you'd probably be taking out these contracts years ahead of time, upgrading the equipment, sending pilots and other personnel to the countries you're making the purchases from to train on the equipment (again, like the Versailles treaty and the Germans training in Lipetsk & Kazan), then only taking delivery after the calendar switches over. Singapore does that today, for example, but that's because of restrictions with geography. They don't have the airspace to train locally. Half of their squadrons are training squadrons in the United States, Australia, or France, for example. Again, nobody wants to violate the terms of the treaty, but they really want your cash, so the idea isn't that you're trying to hide the treaty violations like the Nazis, but rather that you're trying to do the best you can within the restrictions, like the JSDF.

Cheers,

Logan

[kitnut617]

I'd actually forgotten about the P-3 AEW&C despite them being based just down the road from me. That is an excellent option. You could get all the latest engine and avionics upgrades from the P-3 family and the latest radar upgrades from the Hawkeye and have a very modern platform with a great endurance.

Cheers,

Logan

I've got a plan to do one of my Vickers Vanguards like that